Friday, November 25, 2011

Why I'm Not Interested In Discourse With The Occupy Crowd

Some of the things they say are correct, but to engage them on even these topics is a mistake. Don't get sucked in:

A smaller group of conservatives, however, believes the occupiers are onto something. The banks do have too much power. Wages have been stagnant. The problem, these conservatives say, is that Occupy Wall Street doesn’t really know what to do about any of the problems it laments. So this smaller group of conservatives, along with the majority of liberals, is more than happy to supply the occupiers with an economic agenda.

But they might as well be talking to rocks. Both left and right have made the error of thinking that the forces behind Occupy Wall Street are interested in democratic politics and problem solving. The left mistakenly believes that the tendency of these protests to end in violence, dissolute behavior, and the melting away of the activists is an aberration, while the right mistakenly brushes off the whole thing as a combination of Boomer nostalgia for the New Left and Millennial grousing at the lousy job market. The truth is that the violence is not an aberration and Occupy Wall Street should not be laughed away. What we are seeing here is the latest iteration of an old political program that has been given new strength by the failures of the global economy and the power of postmodern technology.

I'm not so sure I agree with this next paragraph, at least the part about the unions:

To be sure, there are plenty of people flocking to the tents who are everyday Democrats and independents concerned about joblessness and the gap between rich and poor. The unions backing the occupiers fall into this group. But the concerns of labor intersect only tangentially with those of Occupy Wall Street’s theorists and prime movers. The occupiers have a lot more in common with the now-decades-old antiglobalization movement. They are linked much more closely to the “hacktivist” agents of chaos at WikiLeaks and Anonymous.

I definitely agree with this last part:

When the police officers and sanitation workers reclaimed Zuccotti Park, Occupy Wall Street’s supporters cried, “You can’t evict an idea whose time has come.” Whether the sympathizers or the critics really understand the idea and the method of the movement is a good question. The idea is utopian socialism. The method is revolutionary anarchism.

This is why I don't engage them.

If you agree with one or two points they make, fine. Their methods are not going to resolve their issues; I hope we're not to the point where mob rule influences sober government. Act like adults, and take your issues to the government that's hired for such purposes. If you think the government is unresponsive or a lost cause, surely you can do better than to bang a drum in a park.

The linked article goes on to discuss utopian socialism, and I highly recommend you read the whole thing.

A few weeks ago in Denver I had the opportunity for some up close and personal time with the Occupy movement, and what I saw was about what you would expect. These are marginal and marginally intelligent people who have grown up conditioned by public educators and the welfare state to believe that they’re something special and entitled to the good life just because they’re special and entitled to the good life. And they’ve also been brainwashed to believe that if America doesn’t acknowledge their specialness and if, indeed, they’re not enjoying the good life, the problem must be a corrupt America.

Occupy is all about greed, self-actualization, and narcissism. The fastest and easiest way to feel superior is to assume the role of a victim … because a victim is always superior to his or her oppressors.

Occupy is also an army the left and Alinksy-style community organizers like Barack Obama have been breeding for decades. The formula is simple: feed enough self-esteem to those who don’t deserve it and you create an entire generation of entitled crybabies desperate to direct the frustration of their unfulfilled lives at whomever.

And the OWS movement isn't about talking but about coercing. It may be the coercion of the poorly brought-up child, i.e temper tantrum, but as long as society acts the part of over-indulgent and irresponsible parents OWS gets away with engaging in what they hope is coercive behavior.

In any case, outside the imaginings of those who are growing increasingly desperate as it becomes increasingly clear society, even humanity, is rejecting their prescriptions the entire OWS movement's losing what little political value it had due to the novelty of watching ostensible adults threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue in the face and die unless they get their way is wearing thin. Watching the whole, silly spectacle sputter unsuccessfully to it's dreary conclusion can't happen quick enough to suit me so that this embarrassing episode can be repeatedly brought up in the past tense as an example of the left wing in "action".

I couldn't agree more with the tone of your assessment of what is transpiring in the Occupy movement.

Engaging in discourse with a group committed to change through revolutionary anarchism is a wasted exercise. Actual discourse only occurs when both parties fully participate. The Occupy movement has demonstrated its adherence to the Sol Alinsky method of forcing change.Time spent attempting to engage this group is better spent determining how to "unplug them".

It's difficult to engage progressives in conversation. It's as if something is wrong with their brains. They get angry and hostile very quickly. You can see that in the Occupy movements or even at the liberal blog comment sections.

It's better to keep the conversation light. Talk about the Demi - Ashton break up, or the latest episode of Friendzone on MTV.. Talk to them at their level.